formal review is here, see the notes below:
BAD source files match upstream:
BAD package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
OK dist tag is present.
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible (GPLv2+). License text included in package.
BAD latest version is being packaged.
OK BuildRequires are proper.
OK compiler flags are appropriate.
OK %clean is present.
OK package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64).
OK debuginfo package looks complete.
OK* rpmlint is silent.
OK final provides and requires look sane.
N/A %check is present and all tests pass.
OK no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
OK owns the directories it creates.
OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
OK no duplicates in %files.
OK file permissions are appropriate.
OK no scriptlets present.
OK code, not content.
OK documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
OK no headers.
OK no pkgconfig files.
OK no libtool .la droppings.
OK not a GUI app.
- the Source tags points to diferent source archives
- can you talk to upstream about the versioning of their source archives (1.2-0.10) - is a post-1.2 release or pre-1.2 release?
- I would use package version as 1.2.0.10 in case of upstream version 1.2-0.10 (as post-1.2)
- version 1.2.1 is available
- drop the notes about RH support and Technology Preview in %description
- move the EOL conversion and the removal of executable bits from %install to %prep section
- output od rpmlint can be ignored
sgpio.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary SGPIO
sgpio.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary SGPIO

The packager and I agreed to change the version to more standard 1.2.0.10, but what remains is the mess upstream is doing with their releases. We expect it will improve in the future. There are no blockers now and this package is APPROVED.